Talk:Panarchy (political philosophy)

2006 discussions
I tried. :) Hope this helps.--Cuomo111 01:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

==

This page clarifies very little. It would be nice to see it reworked.

==

I posted the following on the main page because I wanted to make sure that the average person who might visit it wouldn't get the impression that this topic is some sort of static, canonical concept. I suspect the discussion of these questions is likely to go on here though.

"This article seems to be almost entirely and solely taken from it's parent website, whose link is below. Some information, description or criticism that goes beyond e-advertising would be of significant help and contribution.  For instance, what is the difference between "Panarchy" and "Heterarchy", observing the significantly and poignantly different prefixes?  It could be argued that there seems to be an almost metaphysical bent to the descriptions of Panarchy here.  Furthermore, what would the proponents of this page argue is the difference between "Panarchy" and "Holarchy", other than the thematic or disciplinary scale?"

For my part, I see significant similarities in the organizational concepts of "Panarchy", "Holarchy", and "Heterarchy", with the significant difference seeming to be that both panarchies and holarchies rely on ever-increasing scales as their main organizational drive, while heterarchy seems more finite (for better or worse). In the case of Panarchy, could it be applied to systems other than Human governance? Both Holarchy and Heterarchy have natural or even physical corrolaries that don't require conscious constituents to contribute to the organizational system. That last question is less of a criticism than it is a somewhat semantic point of clarification.

Panarchist Sabotage?
What is with the panarchists constantly redirecting this page over to "panarchism." Clearly they are not even the same topic.

Improving the Disambiguation
I tried breaking up the page into separate panarchy pages but got slammed by the admins.

Reasons to leave both concepts in the same article
1 - It avoids causing linking problems. Links to panarchy of either type from other articles will go straight to appropiate info.

2 - The article isn't really long enough to split.

3 - Naming the two variants seems very problematic. exolon 12:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is panarchy?
I have read and reread and rereread this article and I'm none the wiser. - ∅  ( ∅ ), 22:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Improving this article
The above poster is quite correct. The article also is self-contradictory. This is how I intend to change it soon:


 * Make it clear that P. E. de Puydt originated a concept of free choice of governance/governments competing for members in the same geographical territory. See his very clear article http://www.panarchy.org/depuydt/1860.eng.html  (I'll delete confusing verbiage.)
 * Make it clear that some people have adopted this as an ISM - panarchism.
 * Make it clear that other people, not being aware of de Puydt and "panarchism," then started using it as a means of describing whole systems theories.

There does not have to be a conflict between the two ideas, just an accurate, Non-POV description on how use of the word developed. Carol Moore 21:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Keep Panarchy and Panarchism Separate
Carol Moore 22:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
 * It is obvious there is a philosophical difference between different groups that use the phrase panarchy and that some use panarchISM as an actual philosophy. Looking at talk above we can see they had some editing wars and may again.
 * Anarchy and anarchism are separated, even though there is a big overlap there, so that's a precedent.
 * Panocracy should not be merged into either article. Frankly, considering that panocracy has NO references, for all we know this is original research by a couple of writers, something which is not supposed to be done on wikipedia. So unless you can prove that it really is a philosophy known about in wider political circles, I agree it SHOULD be deleted.  And I don't think it should be referred to in either article if it's just one or two people's bright idea.  When and if it gets more popularity, sure.

Resolving the differences between Panarchy and Panarchism
Sorry I intruded on the panarchy and panarchism discussion, it seems to be a sore subject. I thought about it for a bit, and I think that there are too many embedded explanations and pointers between each. I disagree that it is obvious that there are differences between the two groups... if you could explain that here, maybe you could explain that in the article. While I understand that Anarchy and Anarchism are separated, I don't think that there is enough material here to make the distinction between a word's definition (wikipedia is not a dictionary) and a political philosophy. It comes to mind that Anarchy might be one of those articles where too many philosophers hang out and they tend to demand specific things. Interesting how their anarchy (or anarchism) works out.

On a number of other items:
 * I think Pantarchy should be included as an alternate word for Panarchy, and have the Pantarchy article redirect. As it is, it says the same thing, doesn't it?
 * Maybe you could rewrite the definition to read: "Panarchy", or "Pantarchy", is a specific form of governance (“archy”) that would encompass (“pan”) all others.[1] Not to be confused with the political philosophy "Panarchism", "Panarchy" is a conceptual term which has taken several definitions since it was first coined by the Belgian political economist Paul Emile de Puydt in 1860. In the twentieth century, the term was re-coined separately (bearing some consistency with the original definition) by systems theorists to describe non-hierarchal organizing theories. However, scholars in international relations then used it to describe the notion of global governance, but this definition may be better more closely related to "Pantocracy".
 * Because "De Puydt’s definition of panarchy was expanded into a political philosophy of panarchism" maybe you could clearly resolve the differences this way:
 * Make an article called "Panarchy (systems theory)" which takes that portion of the article
 * Make an article called "Panarchy (international relations)" which takes that portion of the article
 * Take the De Puydt portion and integrate it into the Panarchism article
 * Make the Panarchy article into a redirect to Panarchism

As far as Pantocracy or Panocracy‎ go, I have come to agree that neither are fitting for Panarchy or Panarchism except as far as International relations go. I find them related instead to Direct democracy‎ (pure democracy), sociocracy, and Collectivist anarchism. I did find scholars talking about Pantocracy instead of Panocracy‎, and that is my reason for changing the verbage. ‎Jwiley80 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

POV Changes from NON-sourced article must be changed
It looks like both Pantocracy and Panocracy will be deleted. All you changes are imposing a POV from a NON-sourced page (evidently original research) on FACTS on a Sourced page. I have a big problem with that and intend to undo your changes, unless you or someone else can convince me these changes are NOT against the WIKI spirit. Also note that time wise the international relations coining came BEFORE the systems theory coining as far as the references went. If you can find sources saying it's in opposite order, do tell.

It's fun being an anarchist and creating you own reality, but not on wikipedia!! Carol Moore 02:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Pantarchy
"Pantarchy," as used by Stephen Pearl Andrews, was a very different thing than "panarchy." De Puydt envisioned a kind of free market in government, while Andrews envisioned a natural, voluntary hierarchy. Andrews' Constitution or Organic Base of the Pantarchy makes this quite clear, to the point of proposing a kind of "anarchist inquisition." Pantarchy is itself probably worthy of an article, as it was an important element in the projects of Andrews, Victoria Woodhull, and Section 12 of the IWA, and had impacts in other radical, anarchist, labor, and spiritualist circles. But it is not panarchy. Libertatia 13:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First there IS an article on pantarchy so consider beefing it up. Second, obviously those who want "government by all" are trying to insert their ideas in this article in POV fashion. A new SOURCED section that refers to more than just wiki articles that are NOT sourced might be appropriate, if it is explained why it is inserted in some way that adds to the article, doesn't just promote a position that some words are better used than others.
 * Carol Moore 17:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

The charge that my revision of an existing sentence about confusions seems meant to promote pantarchy is at best humorous. "Assume good faith" and all that, eh? I'll see if I can't do something with the pantarchy entry, which is so stubby a stub that I actually mistook it for just a disambiguation or redirect page. Libertatia 18:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem right now is people are trying to delete panocracy and pantocracy for the good reason they are not sourced at all. Therefore people who evidently don't want to do the work of beefing up the article with real information and sources are trying to merge their unsourced opinions into this article.
 * Pantarchy actually does seem from it's wiki links to have at least a bit more weight to it, but frankly I don't think there are too many people even in left or right anarchist circles who know both words and are likely to get confused, not to mention in the wider world who might chance upon either word/article. So it LOOKs like promoting pantachry, just like if I went to pantarchy and anarchy, etc saying "don't confuse it with panarchy" it might look like promotion. Unless, of course, you can find some article where these have been compared or contrasted, then it's sourced and not just an opinion.  Also, OK to include in the See Also section.
 * Carol Moore 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Panarchy Etymology
I added the Panarchy Etymology for multiple reasons:

1. It clarifies and reinforces the idea of multiple but similar lines of thinking about panarchy.

2. It uses quotes from academic material which (for some) upgrades the status of the conversation.

The actual quotes could be improved with citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulBHartzog (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also the second and third uses were just the ones that others had put up there, not necessarily the most important or most use ones besides the original. Without reading or studying them, do you think that perhaps those two sections should be merged into yours listing and shortened? And/or any other important uses lengthened.  Once get your opinion will look at more closely. Carol Moore 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The Gunderson and Holling usage is the most prevalent. Merging is fine if it better matches wikipedia guidelines. I DO think the quotations add value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.222.119 (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if User:141.213.222.119 is Mr. Hartzog, but looking over this I see a number of problems. The first being that you can't quote yourself, as does Mr. Hartzog from a master's thesis. See Original_Research (Even a famous academic would not be allowed to do that here.) I'm going to get advice on what to do about the etymology issue. So will be making some changes within wikipedia guidelines soon.Carol Moore 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

this isn't correct. You are free to cite yourself in exactly the same way as you are free to cite others: the problem is not with the editor's identity, but with the source cited being a master's thesis which may fail WP:RS. dab (𒁳) 08:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, I see the problem. This is all rather dodgy. If pan- evokes the god Pan to the people who coined the term, all they do is disqualify themselves as sources to be taken seriously. dab (𒁳) 08:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Great job! Will check out WP:V of your note soon. Carol Moore 16:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Deleted questionable See Alsos
I saw some problems with Heterarchy which just noted on web page. Collaborative innovation network and ISO and The Cathedral and the Bazaar didn't even mention panarchy. Please feel free to fix up first article to wiki standards and specify in other two articles their relevance to panarchy. Carol Moore 15:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Other Languages
The links to other languages are in the redirection and not in the main article. Can someone change this in WikiData? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panarchism&redirect=no I don't know how. --Belandra (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't we split this into two articles?
I find the current article a bit confusing. On the one hand, there is panarchy in the sense of Holling and Gunderson, i.e., a social-ecological theory to describe how systems change across levels and scales. On the other hand, there is panarchism in the sense of Puydt, i.e., a political philosophy. Besides the name, both ideas have not much in common. My suggestion would be to use "panarchy" for the former and "panarchism" for the latter. That would mean we would need to create two separate articles. 194.62.169.86 (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul-Emile de Puydt has never used the term Panarchism. His article is titled "Panarchy" and panarchy is a method not an ideology. And he has used the term Panarchy long before anybody else. So, we should stop confusing people with the term panarchism applied to de Puydt. (GPdB, May 2021)


 * Get it, but probably we should then use a disambiguity page, move this on to Panarchy (de Puydt) and make room for Panarchy (social ecology). Both terms emerged independently and have different meanings. 194.62.169.86 (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Scope
This talk page documents years of confusion about the scope of this article. Based on the sourcing, we don't appear to have more to say about this than a dictionary definition. Does anyone have additional sources to propose to build out an article, or should it be split/redirected along the lines of what was discussed above? czar 04:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)